CDC considers narrowing its Covid-19 vaccine recommendations
The US Centers and Disease Control and Prevention is considering recommending annual Covid-19 shots to those who are older or who have compromised immune function, rather than the current blanket recommendation for everyone 6 months of age and older.
The change would more closely align the US with guidance given in other countries. Unlike countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, the US alone recommends an annual Covid-19 vaccine for healthy younger adults and children. The World Health Organization also doesn't routinely recommend annual Covid-19 vaccines for healthy adults under 65 or healthy children.
On Monday, a panel of independent experts that advises the CDC on its vaccine recommendations, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, weighed the pros and cons of moving the US away from a blanket recommendation that most people get an updated Covid-19 shot every year and toward a more nuanced, risk-based recommendation.
Members of the Covid-19 vaccine work group said they began studying the policy change in November.
Under a risk-based recommendation, the CDC would continue to recommend two doses of Covid-19 vaccines each year for older adults — those over 65 — and to anyone with weakened immune function.
It may also consider recommending annual vaccination for adults and children who are at high risk of Covid-19 disease because they have a higher risk of being exposed to it. Those groups could include people like health-care workers or children in day care.
There was also strong support for a statement in the recommendation to say that anyone who wanted to get a Covid-19 vaccine could still get one, even if they didn't fit into a higher-risk category.
A risk-based recommendation would be more complicated to communicate to the public and potentially trickier to implement than a universal recommendation, and some members of the full committee said they'd be against it for that reason.
'I guess I'm surprised that we're considering a risk-based recommendation, which in general, we have not had a lot of success with implementing in the US,' said committee member Dr. Denise Jamieson, dean of the Carver College of Medicine at the University of Iowa.
Jamieson said she also worried that some people could lose insurance coverage for their Covid-19 vaccines if the recommendation was softened for some groups.
It's also not clear where the committee might land on underlying health conditions and who would be considered at higher risk based on a pre-existing condition, such as diabetes or heart or lung diseases.
An analysis of data based on the CDC's list of conditions that increase the risk for severe disease from a Covid-19 infection found that 74% of adults have at least one health condition that puts them at risk.
And even though Covid is no longer causing the same kind of punishing waves of illness and death as it once did, it was still the 10th leading cause of death among adults in 2023. From September 2023 through August 2024, it caused roughly 40,000 deaths in the US.
'Covid is still a fairly dangerous disease and very, very common,' said committee member Dr. Jamie Loehr, who runs a family practice clinic in Ithaca, New York.
Loehr said he wondered how feasible it might be to implement a risk-based recommendation and what message it might send to the public.
'Even though I'm in favor of a risk-based recommendation, I still have my hesitations,' he said.
Others worried that exempting healthy adults might make long Covid more common. Studies have shown that vaccination cuts the risk of developing the condition, which affected more than 9 million adults and children in 2023, according to national surveys.
'What I would like to see is modeling around long Covid,' said committee member Dr. Oliver Brooks, the chief medical officer of Watts Healthcare Corp. in Los Angeles. 'My primary concern through all of this at this point is long Covid.'
Though there was concern that risk-based recommendations would decrease vaccination, others pointed out there's no proof that's true.
'There's not clear evidence at all that risk-based approaches are less effective,' said committee member Dr. Noel Brewer, a professor of public health at the University of North Carolina. 'The data supporting that claim are not really there.'
On the whole, members of the committee who have studied the question most closely said they favored switching to risk-based recommendations.
As of April, more than three-quarters of the working group on the Covid-19 vaccine recommendations for this coming fall and winter favored risk-based recommendations, though they don't plan to formally vote on the policy change until the next meeting, which is scheduled for June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chicago Faucets Hosts Public Health Webinar to Help Facilities Comply with Emerging Legionella Regulations
Spenser Johnson to Present "Navigating Evolving Water Management Regulations: Ensuring Compliance & Public Safety" Thursday, June 19, 2025, at 11:00 am CDT DES PLAINES, Ill., June 9, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- As water safety regulations continue to evolve across the United States, Chicago Faucets is hosting a new, expert-led webinar on June 19 at 11am CST designed to help facility managers in healthcare and other regulated environments stay ahead of compliance challenges. The webinar, will be presented by Spenser Johnson, Director of Water Safety and Management at Barclay Water Management, Inc. It is titled "Navigating Evolving Water Management Regulations: Ensuring Compliance & Public Safety," and will offer vital insights into developing and maintaining effective Water Management Programs (WMPs) that align with national standards and state-specific mandates. This educational topic will be presented Thursday, June 19, 2025, 11:00 am CDT. Click here to register. Legionella Looms Everywhere, New Regulations Coming Up Healthcare facilities, long-term care communities, colleges, hotels, athletic centers, parks and recreation buildings, and office complexes are increasingly expected to proactively manage waterborne risks such as Legionella. While not all these facilities are directly regulated by organizations like American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), The Joint Commission, or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the standards and guidance they provide are shaping industry expectations. Additionally, new state-level regulations in Ohio, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are significantly raising the bar for water safety compliance—making it essential for all building types with complex plumbing systems to stay informed and prepared. Spenser Johnson, Director of Water Safety and Management of Barclay will break down regulatory expectations into actionable strategies, covering: The 6 Steps of a Water Management Plan (ASHRAE 188): From risk assessment to documentation State-Specific Requirements: Including Ohio's Administrative Code 3701-22-07 and New Jersey's Senate Bill 2188 CDC Data on Legionnaires' Disease: What past outbreaks reveal about WMP failures Verification and Validation: How to ensure your WMP is more than a paper plan Chicago Faucets Champions Efforts for Public Health that Reduce Risks "Legionnaires' disease outbreaks remain preventable if Water Management Programs are correctly implemented and maintained," said Richard Nortier, Director of Marketing at Chicago Faucets. "This webinar, the third in our Public Health Series delivers the tools and updates that today's facility managers need to act confidently. Every facility with a complex water system, regardless of sector, should have a formal Water Management Plan in place to reduce risk, ensure accountability, and support public health." Who Should Attend? This session is ideal for: Facility Managers in healthcare, higher education, hospitality, and government Building and Plumbing Engineers responsible for complex plumbing systems Environmental Health & Safety Professionals seeking compliance clarity Infection Prevention Specialists, Nurses, and Operations Directors Subject Matter Expert: Spenser Johnson Spenser Johnson, of Barclay Water Management is an ASSE 12080 Certified Legionella Water Safety and Management Specialist. She brings more than eight years of experience in Legionella risk mitigation. She has developed site-specific WMPs for over 100 facilities and works closely with teams to provide remediation support and supplemental disinfection strategies. Spenser's leadership will equip attendees with immediately applicable insights grounded in real-world expertise. Reserve Your Spot Today Water safety is not optional—it's a regulatory necessity and a public health today and get the guidance you need to navigate what's next: About Chicago Faucets Chicago Faucets offers a wide range of products for healthcare, education, and commercial facilities. Chicago Faucets is committed to innovation, quality, and environmental sustainability, with many products manufactured in the USA and meeting stringent industry standards. Chicago Faucets is a member of the ASPE, ASHE, U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the International WELL Building Institute. The company is also a partner with EPA WaterSense, and a charter sponsor of the Alliance for Water Efficiency. Many of the plumbing fittings meet the USGBC guidelines for LEED, EPA WaterSense and CALGreen. For more information on the Chicago Faucets offering, visit or call 800-566-2100. Contact: Perrie View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE The Chicago Faucet Company Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
37 minutes ago
- New York Times
Gun Deaths of Children Rose in States That Loosened Gun Laws, Study Finds
Firearm deaths of children and teenagers rose significantly in states that enacted more permissive gun laws after the Supreme Court in 2010 limited local governments' ability to restrict gun ownership, a new study has found. In states that maintained stricter laws, firearm deaths were stable after the ruling, the researchers reported, and in some, they even declined. Guns are the leading cause of death in the United States for people under 18. Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency room doctor at Massachusetts General Brigham Hospital in Boston, who was the study's lead author, said he was dismayed to find that most of the children's deaths were homicides and suicides. 'It's surprising how few of these are accidents,' Dr. Faust said. 'I always thought that a lot of pediatric mortality from guns is that somebody got into the wrong place, and I still think safe storage is important, but it's mostly homicides and suicides.' The study, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, examined the 13-year period after the June 2010 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment, which protects an individual's right to bear arms, applies to state and local gun-control laws. The decision effectively limited the ability of state and local governments to regulate firearms. The researchers classified states into three categories based on their gun laws: most permissive, permissive and strict. They used a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database to analyze firearm mortality trends from 1999 to 2010 — before the Supreme Court ruling — and compared them with the 13-year period afterward. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
